EcoLiving Ideas

By Bobby Sciortino on Aug 22, 2012

5 reviews |

| Login to Comment |

Bobby Sciortino The average American eats three burgers per week! That's 156 burgers per person per year, which means that more than 48 billion burgers are consumed in the United States each year. This is only part of how Americans, on average, eat three times more meat than people in other countries. I am not one of these people.

In my last article I discussed my journey as a vegetarian over the past year and a half. I shared some of my reasons and rationale for engaging in this lifestyle. As I mentioned, my rationale is three-fold: animal rights, health, and environmental sustainability. Animal rights is purely a personal reason. I place value on the lives of all creatures, not just humans. I am able to meet my nutritional needs without consuming animal products, thus I choose to do so. As for health, there are many studies that report negative health consequences to consuming meat. At the very least, the frequency and amount of meat consumption in most western cultures, especially in the U.S., is far beyond what humans have consumed for the majority of our existence; that is until the major industrialization of food production in the last half century.

The most compelling reason for considering a vegetarian diet, or at least reducing one’s meat consumption, is the severe environmental impact associated with it’s production. When you choose to eat meat, it affects everyone.

Livestock production uses an exceptionally large quantity of land – 30 percent of the Earth’s entire land surface is used for livestock production. Additionally, 33 percent of arable land is used to produce feed for livestock. As prosperity increases around the world, more people can afford animal products and thus demand increases. This leads to more land being appropriated, often through deforestation, for both livestock production and crops for animal feed. For example, some 70 percent of former Amazonian forests have been turned over to grazing.

The livestock sector generates 18 percent of global CO2 equivalent greenhouse gas emissions, which is more than the entire transportation sector. Livestock manure releases methane and nitrous oxide, which are very potent greenhouse gases.These emissions contribute to global warming just the way your car does. Additionally, manure decomposition also releases ammonia, which causes an increase in acid rain.

The industrialization of livestock production into factory farms has additional The Sustainability of a Vegetarian Diet

ramifications. Since these animals are kept in such unhealthy conditions that they regularly get sick, a massive amount of drugs are required to keep them from dying and infecting other animals before they are processed. According to the U.S. FDA, about 80 percent of all antibiotics produced and sold domestically in the U.S. are used on farm animals. In turn, these animals produce waste that has antibiotic residue that is then absorbed into the ground contaminating soil and water supplies. In addition to consuming antibiotics through meat consumption, humans also ingest the antibiotic residues. Appetizing?

A study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition analyzed the merits of the average American meat-based diet compared to the lacto-ovo vegetarian diet (one including dairy and egg products). It concluded that the lacto-ovo vegetarian diet is more sustainable considering that the meat based food system requires significantly more energy, land, and water resources.

Here are some numbers to sum it all up. It takes a fraction of the energy and water to produce food from plants than it does from meat. There are various estimates, and it depends what you consider in the lifecycle analysis of various food products. By some measures it takes 28 calories of fossil fuel energy to produce 1 calorie of meat protein for human consumption; it takes only 3.3 calories of fossil fuel energy to produce 1 calorie of protein from grain for human consumption. The same can be said for water: a standard diet of a person in the U.S. requires 4,200 gallons of water per day (for animals’ drinking water, irrigation of crops, processing, washing, cooking, etc.). A person on a vegan diet requires only 300 gallons a day.

Why are humans, as rational creatures, producing crops to feed to animals so we can process the animals to feed to people? Why not just produce crops to feed to people and simplify the whole supply chain? Plant based foods can produce an equivalent amount of calories and nutrients for human consumption by using less resources and creating less environmental degradation. I think this makes sense both logically and economically. That is why I choose to be a vegetarian. If you care about the planet and future generations, I invite you to consider reassessing your dietary choices and give vegetarianism a try.

See All EcoLiving Ideas | Login to Comment

Reviews

By Steven Burke on Oct 15, 2012

Rating:

Comments: Also, I feel like this site should open the comment section on the articles to the public rather than having to create a profile so that we can really get the conversation moving!

By Steven Burke on Oct 15, 2012

Rating:

Comments: I think that Michael Pollan said it best when he said something to the effect of if every industrial slaughterhouse and factory farm had glass walls almost everyone would stop eating industrial meat tomorrow. We have become so far removed from the food that we consume that it is incredibly easy (by design) to pick up meat in a uniform package in the grocery store and never give a second thought to the fact of where it came it from or that it was once an a living creature on the other end of dinner plate. This disconnect with our food and where it comes from has implications across all of our diet, but the consequences are particularly pronounced with meat consumption in terms of negative personal health effects and the global environmental balance. I think one of the most important features of this article is that it skims the surface on how intertwined so many important aspects of our meat consumption are, and how big of an impact can be had by the simplest of dietary choices. While the myth that an individual cannot make a significant difference persists, I think some of the numbers here help disprove that misconception as fallacious, and hopefully inspire some to take a more thoughtful approach to their eating habits.

By Melissa O. on Sep 11, 2012

Rating:

Comments: This article is extremely eye-opening. I was moderately aware of the severe impact industrialized agriculture has on the environment, however, I am shocked to read that 30% of the Earth's surface is used for livestock production. Equally disturbing, is the notion that such a large number of valuable resources are used for such production rather than to find a more sustainable way of eating and living. I appreciate this article's attempt to educate more people about the effects of mass consumption and industrialization. Particularly, it raises a lot of interesting issues about the human (or American) need to eat anything and everything "nature" has to offer. Michael Pollan diagnosed American with a "national eating disorder' and these statistics fully support this diagnosis - specifically the opening paragraph! I think Bobby is correct in suggesting that some dietry change occur in order to move towards a large-scale shift to a more sustainable and healthier environment.

By Pamela Quinlan on Sep 5, 2012

Rating:

Comments: Your points on land-use are really interesting. Although the discussion on emissions related to livestock manure is one that I have heard many times before - I had never considered the impact of deforestation and land use. I believe the 18% of global CO2 equivalent GHG number is just related to the emissions released through livestock manure and do not incorporate the impact of the land used for livestock production and the feed and the associated reduction of carbon sinks. Does anyone know if a study has looked at the total impact to the global carbon balance?

By Tricia Ebner on Sep 5, 2012

Rating:

Comments: It is really interesting that as a society, Americans generally harbor on man-made devices as the sole cause of our environmental deterioration, but rather something that is considered “natural” – though clearly generated en masse through unnatural processes – actually has an incredible negative impact. Excess in any capacity is both detrimental and unnatural – 48 billion burgers! Though it is largely industry driven, reducing demand no matter how small in scale will ultimately generate change. Reducing meat intake benefits you’re your body and your environment. Maybe if full-out vegetarianism is not a chosen route – scaling back on the frequency and quality of the foods that you do consume is a move towards depleting the excess.

Gia's Plum Picks